The Case Against Theism - Refuting the Fine-Tuning Argument

The fine-tuning argument is one of the most popular arguments for theism, based on the observation that the constants of nature appear 'fine-tuned' to within a narrow range that enables life to exist. In this video I argue that the fine-tuning argument fails for three reasons. First, the argument unjustifiably focuses exclusively on constants while ignoring the equations that give relevance to those constants. Second, we do not know what possible conditions life could exist in if the constants of nature were different. Third, apologists have failed to provide clear and convincing reasons why god would be likely to fine-tune a universe for embodied life. I show how apologetic responses are undermined by lack of imagination and double-standards, rendering the fine-tuning argument an unconvincing argument for theism.

[frederickdebian]

In general, it seems that positing a god as an explanation of anything is an epistemically naive move for TWO reasons:
1) the theist is creating an omni-cause or omni-explanation, meaning a cause that can being about *any* state of affairs you can ever possibly observe or conceive of. A cause that CAN make anything.
2) the theist is anthropocentric in their postulation of god's qualities, and so assumed what this cause WOULD do, which is consistent with anything that the theist might observe.

So at the end of the day they just kick the can down the road, take the explanation problem a step back, by observing some phenomenon and postulating an explanation that amounts to nothing more than "Something so great that it COULD have brought it about, and something so great that it WOULD have brought it about, in precisely this way".

Why a universe? Well clearly a universe-bringer-abouter, that wanted to make this human-facilitating one!

Why moral laws? Well clearly a moral legislator that specifically wanted to make these moral laws that I personally like!

As a hypothesis it's so bizzare, ad-hoc, and transparently anthropocentric.

[MatthewFearnley]

I'll reply to my comment with a link, if YT lets me.

Not sure if we'll see more responses, but I think it would be nice if there were, considering how well this argument is laid out, and how it focuses on less common objections, and how it actively invites people to engage with it.

[MatthewFearnley]

Thanks. I’ve not finished the video so far, but I think this is one of the most respectful and reasoned attacks I’ve heard of the Fine Tuning argument.

I hope to finish watching soon, and if you would like (unless the final bit changes my mind), explain why I don’t think these particular objections really work.
I think a lot of the difference potentially comes down to what we should hope to get out of the FTA.

[MrGustavier]

Your equation at 32:00 is wrong. P(A|B)xP(B) is NOT P(B|A), but it is the probability of the intersection : P(A∩B).

[TheVexar]

Will this finally get apologists to stop saying "It takes more faith to be an atheist"?

[MatthewFearnley]

I think the issue with Problem 1 is a delicate one.
As I understand it, the objection is essentially, "maybe, if we think about other possible laws, there might be universes that are more 'broadly' tuned for life, i.e. life readily exists in universes with different laws."

It sounds like this is being offered as speculation. Sort of a "reverse argument from ignorance".
(Instead of the overstated "we don't know therefore naturalism is false", it's offering an optimistic "we don't know, therefore possibly naturalism is true".)
I think the middle ground is closest to truth here. "We don't know, therefore naturalism currently looks unlikely. We might find evidence in the future that confirms it or makes it likely or disconfirms it entirely."

An additional problem is that we are still in a finely tuned universe. If there exist broadly tuned universes, then it is still surprising that we find ourselves in a finely tuned universe.

Either 1. the broadly tuned universes don't exist or aren't actually possible naturalistically, in which case, we're back where we started, stuck with the mystery of our improbable existence given naturalism.

Or 2, other life-permitting laws exist, but also require fine tuning, in which case, we're also back where we started with the same mystery.

Or 3, both broadly tuned and finely tuned universes are possible. In this case, we should expect to be in a broadly tuned universe, because that's where the vast majority of epistemically possible living observers will be. That still has the potential to be much more easily explained by a hypothesis that the universe's laws were intended to be this way. Even without being able to "imagine" what purpose different possible deities might have in doing so, it's still evidence against naturalism.

[MatthewFearnley]

Problem 2, like Problem 1, feels like speculation. "Maybe it's possible this universe is broadly tuned for life, just the kind of universes and life forms we'd get change wildly depending on how some dials are turned."

I don't know the science well enough, but I've not heard any atheistic scientists trying that route. It doesn't rule it out though.

One potential issue here is that it only affects some of the fine tunings. Other chemistries might allow life, but still depend on a finely tuned expansion rate in order for stars and planets to form.

Another potential issue, as with Problem 1, is that it might run into regions of "broadly tuned universes" that are dissimilar to our finely tuned one.
Universes where regions of constants have broad freedom of movement while still producing life forms dissimilar to us, that are common across that region.

If that happened, naturalism would lead us to expect a broadly tuned universe, and there would still be a lot of potential for other, non-naturalistic hypotheses to explain why we're in a finely tuned region.

[dmreturns]

imho - The word "God" is really "I don't know" cosplaying as knowledge.

[johnfeusi]

Excellent video! I've always been frustrated by the confidence that we *know* what would happen if the constants were varied. Your points about the double standards was a fresh take for me that I liked.I find it interesting that you didn't raise the selection bias objection though.

[CosmoPhiloPharmaco]

Whoa! Finally a high-quality video on the fine-tuning argument! It mentions the best rebuttals to this apologetic non-sense. I'm including this one in my counter-apologetics playlist.

[criticalbasedtheory]

I debate fine tuning on my channel all the time and I am very impressed with your presentation here. Well researched and excellently communicated, you’ve definitely earned my sub

[rumraket]

Excellent video James. I particularly appreciate the whole aspect on God's psychology and it's relationship to bayesianism. Most succinctly, by positing a divine fine-tuner, theists just transfer the low probability of the universe we see to a low probability of the God-explanation instead, leaving us with the same problem their "solution" is supposed to fix, a low probability.

[CharlesPayet]

I love the sectioning that outlines how limited theists’ imagination is, and how they just hand-wave away any objections or attempts to quantify anything about their specific god beliefs.

[Psalm]

6:00

Possibilities of other arrangements a) do not explain the origin or existence of the verified and agreed-upon constants themselves, b) are not evidence _against_ the FTA but only hypothetical speculations, and c) do not explain why the physical world is even intelligible to us or why our mathematical formulations actually work in explaining the particle physics in the first place.

Probabilities and unverified hypothetical arrangements of particles do not carry much of any epistemological or explanatory weight.

It’s like trying to explain away the uniqueness of human life in the universe by postulating a multitude of as yet unknown alien species. Even if we discovered a multitude of alien beings or multiple universes at some future point, it would neither diminish our uniqueness as human beings, nor would it explain why we or any other life form exists.

The initial objection you present is a non-sequitur. It does not follow that the possibility of other atomic arrangements of other life forms or universes provides a defeater for the FTA. It truth other worlds would only increase the amount of entities which would require naturalism to account for. Occam’s razor. Possibilities and hypotheticals are not arguments against nor are they evidence against the FTA.

[alifleih]

I like these videos better than older ones. Having a PowerPoint-style presentation with arguments prepared ahead of time and a focus on what is on the slide makes us get more out of these videos. By the way, @JamesFodor, do you happen to be related to American philosopher Jerry Fodor?

[singingphysics]

wonderful video. so clear, especially the part about Bayesian probabilities

[Venaloid]

Excellent conclusion. Fine-tuning God's attributes to make him very likely to create our universe is almost certainly what apologists are doing, making God's prior probability very low... I honestly hadn't put those two pieces together before. Well-explained!

[labbertubes]

2:32 - "life as we know it" is all the argument you need. The fine tuning argument is a tautology that says "if things were different, then things would be different". There is no necessity for us to exist, and there is not requirement for life to exist in anything closely resembling the scales at which we currently observe it. It could be vastly smaller/larger, slower/faster than anything we observe today - yet still be life as we could have it explained to us.

[TheWeb]

Great presentation on a crucial point that is often just skipped - holding theists to the same standards when assessing their claims

[Nathillien]

Great video.
Additionally one question comes to mind: Why would an all knowing, all powerful... being, NEED to fine tune anything?
This being would NEED to resort to fine tune ONLY if it is limited by how the nature works (laws of nature).
But in that case it would not be all powerful.
Some apologists might say it made these laws as well.
This wouldn't change anything, it would mean; it restricted itself by making these laws and the result is the same - not all powerful - meaning not a god.